And so the next major audiophile engineering challenge is, err, well what?

[Labarum]

Brian, you need to learn how to use the quote facility!

I have, but it's quite tedious with multi quotes!

[Marco]

Believe me, Brian, it not as tedious as having to read through paragraphs of and you said "blah, blah", and also "such and such"...

Please use the quote function as provided - cheers!

Marco.

[Labarum]

No offence Brian I hope??

None at all.

I didn't tell you that down the road in the church next to the electronic organ is a brand new Clavinova that, unlike mine, will do the most amazing tricks. The young man who plays it (between the disco kit and the laptop) is quite unbelievable; but I will stick to Bach.

Some of my colleagues can be very stuffy. I say to them "What would Mozart have made of a modern synthesiser?" He would have absolutely loved it. Mind you, he would have been just as delighted to have a modern Concert Grand under his fingers - they just couldn't make keyboards like that in his day.

[Hozepipe]

None at all.

I didn't tell you that down the road in the church next to the electronic organ is a brand new Clavinova that, unlike mine, will do the most amazing tricks. The young man who plays it (between the disco kit and the laptop) is quite unbelievable; but I will stick to Bach..

Ah, now perhaps you can advise me then. I've never warmed to Bach in the past, but heard some recently on Radio 3 and really loved it - it was a canon of some sort. My classical tastes are mainly 19th-20th century (Janacek, Vaughn-Williams, Bartok etc). Can you recommend some Bach for a neophyte?

[Labarum]

Please use the quote function as provided - cheers!

Done!

[Labarum]

Ah, now perhaps you can advise me then. I've never warmed to Bach in the past, but heard some recently on Radio 3 and really loved it - it was a canon of some sort. My classical tastes are mainly 19th-20th century (Janacek, Vaughn-Williams, Bartok etc). Can you recommend some Bach for a neophyte?

I was wondering, since you are a Guitarist, whether you would like Bach for Guitar - Julian Breem has quite a bit oyu could easily find in the catalogue.

But then I came upon this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW-vhSEaV2E

It's one of Bach's most famous organ pieces - I just didn't think that was possible on an electric guitar!

but listen here

http://www.el-organo.com/download/or...565/bwv565.htm

This is more gentle

http://www.acoma-co.com/MP3/BachprelludeBVD894.mp3

And look out for John Williams Bach CDs

---

The Brandenburg Concertos have to be high on the list, and there is a free FLAC (and other formats) download here

http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/download_eng

It's very good, for a freebie.

[Marco]

Tim,

I had missed that post, Marco. Thanks.

No problem. I just hate 'loose ends' in discussions, if you see what I mean

I think in that post, and a few others, we're still having two different conversations. You're continuing need to understand and have a high opinion of the test listeners' hifi expertise, and desire for the time and relaxed environment for proper evaluation makes it clear that you still think I'm talking about subjective quality judgments. I'm not. I'm talking about the simple ability to identify the presence of a change, its mere audibility in the system: "Here's A. Here's B. Here's X. Is X A or B...or neither? Which brings us to this...

I completely understand where you're coming from, even if my posts suggest otherwise. However, it's not simply a matter of a group of people conducting a 'scientific' test, coming to a conclusion, and then 'bingo!' - It is an accepted fact. What if these 'specially selected' individuals don't have the necessary listening skills to determine real differences or the test system doesn't have the required resolution to resolve differences that may actually exist but which as a result of the system's deficiencies cannot be heard?

My point is that evaluating the effect of hi-fi equipment and ancillaries is quite often not as simple or as 'black & white' as you seem to think. Like I said, differences are often in a real sense very subtle, particularly with cables and suchlike, so correctly ascertaining what "X, A or B" is, unless their effect is immediately obvious, can be a challenging or complicated process; *that* is where the experience and expertise I've been referring to comes in.

For example, I've been given cables from people to try with which they state they can't hear any difference and yet when I put them into my system their sonic effect is usually easily discernable given sufficient time for me to analyse it, quite simply because a) my system has sufficient resolution to reveal the difference and b) because I have the experience to know what to listen for. People without the right system or experienced ears could quite easily conclude that no difference exists when actually that's not the case.

Can you understand this important distinction?

Well, I suppose everything can be considered an opinion. There are people who do not believe in evolution in spite of mounds of physical evidence and decades of scientific confirmation. But if a random sample of people large enough to reduce the margin for error to statistically insignificant say the rock is orange and you still see red, the logical conclusion is that the one is color blind, not that the many are unable to properly discern the subtleties of true color.

Indeed, but like I've said, hi-fi isn't as 'black & white' [or as red and orange] as that (analysing its effects are far more complex) otherwise we'd all be using the same system and hearing the same things. The fact that we're having this debate now is a case in point!

Yet this is often the kind of conclusion audiophiles reach. It is a very comforting and flattering conclusion, to be sure. But that is the opinion. The scientifically tested and verified conclusion is what we generally refer to, in the modern human endeavor, as fact.

Yes, that's providing of course that everything which needs to be measured and tested to determine an effect is understood and can be measured

Otherwise it isn't a fact and the test is flawed!

Mind you, I'm not talking about holding measurement or stats above listening. I'm talking about nothing but listening: The manufacturer has measured it. Can we hear it?

I've dealt with this already - see above.

There is a proven methodology for taking the possibility of psychological bias out of the equation and finding out if, indeed, it can be heard. And for some strange reason the audiophile hobby avoids it, discredits it, refuses it and finally simply concludes, against all logic, that their ears, with all psychological bias intact, are superior to it.

First of all, a human being's enjoyment of recorded music has got nothing to do with logic or any other form of scientific reasoning, so applying science to an emotional experience like this is pointless and nonsensical. That is why I think science and hi-fi (from a consumer's point of view) make very poor bedfellows, and those who don't accept this and insist on judging everything relating to its use on a scientific basis often have a very difficult time understanding what's going on when differences heard (or claimed to be heard) don't show up on an oscilloscope! It's a bit like a robot that's been programmed in a specific way being made to go against its 'primary directives' and screaming rather distressed: "Cannot compute, cannot compute!" and then blowing up

Music and a hi-fi system's interpretation of it on recorded formats, and a listener's appreciation of the effect thereof, is a multi-faceted 'organic' thing and not something that particularly lends itself well to being 'measured' or analysed scientifically. I could go on about this in more detail but that can wait for another day.

*However*, as you correctly state, removing a listener's expectation/psychological bias (and I believe this condition exists and is highly relevant) is a different matter altogether and blind AB-X testing is an effective way of doing this.

But that of course doesn't tackle the very thing that most audiophiles are concerned about - how a piece of equipment sounds in a musical sense. It's all very well identifying treble emphasis when blind testing, say, a cable, and being able to identify this effect within a margin for error for it to be statistically insignificant, but identifying what effect the cable has on the listener's ability to enjoy music less or more on his or her system is much more difficult, and ultimately this is what matters far more than simply being able to correctly identify prosaic hi-fi effects.

But then we're into a whole world of subjectivist assessment again, and that's just fine by me because, as I've said Tim, evaluating the sonic effects of a hi-fi system isn't a 'black & white' scientific process - it's far more complex than that and those who don't (or won't) accept this fact will never fully understand what the relationship between hi-fi and music is all about...

Marco.

[Filterlab]

I have, but it's quite tedious with multi quotes!

Then use the multi-quote function. There's a little button next to 'quote' with a '+' sign, click this in as many posts as you wish to quote, on the last post you wish to quote click the 'quote' button and all of them will appear in your reply in order.

[tfarney]

Can you understand this important distinction?

I can. And I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not that distinction adds legitimacy or destroys objectivity.

Tim

[Hozepipe]

The Brandenburg Concertos have to be high on the list, and there is a free FLAC (and other formats) download here

http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/download_eng

It's very good, for a freebie.

Thanks Brian, I'll check those out. Unfortunately it'll have to be via the headphone socket of my pooter until I get a good DAC.

s